


eon ae cna 
eh * ah prs te 
iin i Pa res Sess aad ye fb Rear nS ER) 
AS Sle q 
: 2 eee 
, at , : sre nt TR Sites, ‘ 1 ! ’ ew 
: ' By hen Bt hong eee ap ation ite! Re 2 Minrgilaly ge Fe 
4 * : Leese ERaEN oe 
¥ po ‘ ? 
Tien, 
ene ath ABE yop Card “ Es 
’ caer heuer. j me Aen 
Pe ee Mere | . Bind f f x a ‘i a Sr dogs 
' i ow j a ir Neata att EL Nutty erat a cba a Soa 
, Rar irae 
“ye . 5 Rese ‘ KLE h ey beat ‘ Wye 
a " . ‘ thes 5 Soar 4 phmn wide aiezas 
see : Dike BA Ere re gely 
We ca ven 
‘ apa 





ack 
ye. 
Dit Ars oe ok 


GETTY {3 
MUSEUM © 






















































































THE J. PAUL GETTY MUSEUM LIBRARY 











a 











me, 


PROF. PASQUALE FARINA/ MAX A 


tion 








1350 S, 51st. Street £1524 N. Marshall St. 


aw 











PETER PAUL RUBENS 


- 1640 


1577 


THE J. PAUL GETTY MUSEUM LIBRARY 


Peter Paul Rubens 
By Pror. PasquaLe Farina 


Rubens is one of the few gifted individuals on whom special circumstances smiled 
from infancy—His father, whose family came originally from Styria, in “Upper Austria,” 
was appointed a Magistrate of Antwerp, in May 1562. 


Between 1562 and 1566 the Catholic population was being subjected to the ill 
effect of a latent anti-catholic movement, culminating into serious disturbance, in the 
Netherlands, which broke out in August 1566, with a particularly singular outburst 
of rage for destroying pictures that, with the disorders which followed, caused people to 
fear for their life and property. John Rubens and his family sought refuge in Cologne, 
where in the year 1574 was born the oldest son Philip—who died in 1611. 


On the 29th of June 1577 a second son was presented to him, whom they gave the 
name of Perer Paut, in honor of the Saints—St. Peter and St. Paul, that were being 
venerated in that day. 


In 1587 John Rubens died while he was still a refuge in Cologne. In the mean-time 
the Duke of Parma had conquered Antwerp, where order and normal life was re-estab- 
lished. Rubens was at the time already sixteen years old, when his family returned to 
Antwerp. There, he had as his teachers Tobias Verhaegt and Adam Van Veen, from 
1§96 until 1600—when he went to Venice. Rubens studied Titian and Giorgione, 
copying their works—The Duke of Mantua, Vincengo Gonzaza I. made him his Court- 
painter. In 1601 Rubens went to Rome. There he studied Raffaello and other works 
by great masters. In 1603 he returned to Mantua. The Duke then sent him to Spain, 
in March as his messenger with presents for the King. His staying in Spain was a 
successful event of his life. His art influenced many of the Spanish painters, as 
Velazquez, while as a “Diplomat” he was held in the highest esteen, not only by the 
King, but also by all the-dignitary of his court, by the greatest dames of the Spanish 
Aristocracy. In 1607 he returned to Rome to finish his study, but having received 
news of the dangerous illness of his mother, he returned to Antwerp—in November, 
but after her death. 


Rubens was the most versatile painter of his time. He could, as he did, treat all 
kind of subjects. Those in which he particularly excelled, were the historical and 
religious subjects. He was very much versed in literature and sciences. He was a happy 
and wealthy man. He was of very sweet disposition, gentle and kind with every one. 
He was held in high esteem by Maria de Medicci, the widow of Henry IV. of France. 
From Philip of Spain to Charles I. of England and all those who came in contact with 
Rubens, were charmed by his manner, by the sumptuosity with which he entertained 
friends and by his facility of conversing with them in eight different languages. 

In 1630 Rubens married Helen Fourment, whom he had immortalized in so many 
portraits. Rubens was fifty-three years old when he married her, only a sixteen year 
old girl; yet, they seem to have lived very happily together. They had all what they 
could desire. Rubens had attained wealth and luxury, mental cultivation, life comfort, 
world wide honor, which were only embittered, during his declining years, by repeated 
attacks of gout. 

He died in 1640 and was buried in the chapel of the Church of St. Jacques, in 
Antwerp. 





Prate IT Drawing by P. P. Rubens 
in the Albertini Collection, Vienna 


DANIEL 


ING let 


LIONS’ DEN 


ee 


Analytical Comparative Study 
RUBENS’ WORKS 


-Pror. CHkv. PasQuaLe FaRINA 


Expert on the Authorship of “Old Masters” and on their Restoration 


PHILADELPHIA 
PRIVAVHELY@-.2 RGN IED 
ANNO DOMINI MCMXXIV 








Pye » oe =" 5 
* a 
re ag eg ge 4 wh 3 
ts a 





=: - COPYRIGHT 1924 
as, 

Pror. CHEVELIER PasQuate Farina 
AND 

Max A. KrankEL 


Introduction 


The following analitic comparative study of one of the most disputed 
work, by “Peter Paul Rubens,” the greatest Flemish painter of the early 17th 
century, is the result of about four years of methodic researching of data, of 
expert opinion and of photographic reproductions of the same subject: “Daniel 
in the Lions’ Den”’ that has been critically treated in this booklet. The deduc- 
tion and the conclusion to which I came to, after having exhaustively analized 
all the facts at my disposal will convince the reader, of how impossible it would 
have been to express any different opinion than mine, as with regard to its 
authorship. 

Its to.a great extent due to the persevering efforts of Mr.-MaxA. 
Krankel, in obtaining all the historical data, and photos, from European 
Museums, from private collectors and through reference books, that this work 
has finally been completed and published. While Mr. Krankel has faithfully 
accomplished the research work under my personal guidance, he has however 
done it intelligently, so that my task has thus been greatly facilitated. 


Gipecrle <2, 





“Bubens’ Daniel’ 


NG 


Pror. CuHev. PasquaLe Farina 


Whether a painting is by Rubens or by Titian, by Van-Dyck or by Carlo Dolce, 
by Gaspar Crayer or by Paolo Veronese or by any of their followers or pupils, matters 
little or nothing at all, when the fact to be established is chiefly the period in which the 
work was produced. 

The elements to be studied, examined and analyzed are necessarily the “body” on 
which the artist produced them, together with the pigments and medium used by him 
in order to accomplish his aim—(Wood, canvas, copper—slate etc.) 

“Daniel in the Lions’ Den’”—by Rubens, is one of the many works by this master 
that were copied, and the copies attributed to him. The Expert, to whom are sub- 
mitted photographic-reproductions of any work of art, cannot and should not give 
out any conclusive opinion, in regard to its genuineness or authorship, merely by look- 
ing at a photograph. 

The picture representing this subject, which is now in my care, has been thoroughly 
studied and analyzed. The “‘materia—prima’”’ that constitutes the various elements 
concurring in the building up of the work, are similar to those used by Flemish masters 
during the latest part of the 16th century and early 17th century. 

So is the weaving of the canvas, the manner of priming it and the chemical nature 
of the pigments. 

In this work we notice, after we have made a thorough critical, analytical, com- 
parative study of all the artistic elements which Rubens had at his disposal for the 
composition of the subject, that the position of each lion, their expression and feeling, 
and their anatomical structure are in every detail similar to previous studies made by 
Rubens in pen and ink sketches for the use of the composition. (See Plate I and II.) 
Nevertheless a more accurate study of the anatomical parts of the bodies of each 
animal brings to notice some errors of drawing and form. The timidity in construct- 
ing the human figure of Daniel in this picture is remarkable when compared with any 
other figure that Rubens produced afterward, in which there are spontaneity of pose, 
of action and freedom of treatment, such as we admire in his later works. 

Traveling through Italy, Rubens studied quite re/igious/y the old masters’ works, 
most particularly their technique, manner and style,so that he acquired, to a certain 
extent, some mannerisms, while he occasionally copied some of their works, closely 
imitating the masters’ technique. 

In fact, we find that in some of his early paintings, the constructive method and 
technique is similar to those which characterize the individuality of Leonardo, Titian, 
of Palma Vecchio, of Tintoretto, Andrea del Sarto, Veronese and of some masters of 
the Bolongnese School. 

Some critics in writing about “Daniel” pictures pointed out as I have already stated 
above,—the absence of spontaneity of pose, the stiffness of form, a forced expression. 


Neste 


This is often seen in other works by Rubens, produced at about the same time in which 
he produced “Daniel.”” The works of his later period are so strikingly different in 
conceptions of subject, in composition, in grouping the figures, in their action, in their 
expression and motion, in the brush work, and in the boldness of contrast in light and 
shadows, in the vividness of the tonal values, and brilliance of color—that experts on 
art matters,—particularly those that criticize chiefly on the general esthetic point of 
view, or on theories alone,—often judge the earlier paintings such as this of Daniel—to 
be, either a copy or a study after the master work, by some of his pupils. While I agree 
to a certain extent with their opinion, particularly in this case and have doubted that 
it was by Rubens’ brush I am now convinced that it should be accepted as his. No 
other deduction is possible, after we have made an exhaustive comparative study 
with the painting representing the same subject that was in the Hamilton collection. 
Under this comparison it becomes evident that the one we have here in Philadelphia is 
far superior to the former, because of better drawing, form, and expressions of the lions, 
while the figure of Daniel, in spite of appearing stiff, affected in his pose and move- 
ments, 1s more correct in form and proportion. It is not necessary to be a critic or 
an artist, to see the ugliness and distortions of human form of the figure of Daniel in 
the Hamilton painting. The curves indicating the muscles of the shoulders, of the arms 
and knees of the figure, are grotesquely exaggerated, as if belonging to an athlete 
straining all his being to win the fight, and not of a man fearing the coming assault 
of the beasts, while the expression of the face is not that of one in the act of imploring 
mercy and protection from the Almighty, but rather of the man who is mocking or 
sneering. The head is disproportionately large; the size of the feet and their form are 
utterly different from the correct one that 1s to be admired in the figure of our picture. 

Proceeding further analizing and comparing each of the figures of the lions in the 
Hamilton picture and those forming the group in ours, with the study in pen and ink 
sketch, (Plate No. I and II) by Rubens himself, will indicate that, while in each of the 
two paintings there were corrections and alterations made, it does not alter the fact 
that the lions seen in the Hamilton picture are far inferior to those in ours, with regard 
to correctness of drawing, of form and expression. , 

There is another painting now in possession of Mr. Betz, in Worms a/ Rhein, which 
is most certainly the work of a very inferior master—it would not be too daring to say 
that it is by an amateur. It is not worth while to emphasize why and on what points 
I base my opinion in judging it a very poor copy. Just a glance at the production of 
the picture (Plate No. VI) will lead any one who possesses a proper sense of porportion, 
to the same conclusion. We find, in perusing Max Rooses book on Rubens’ work 
published in 1886, that the painting which was im the Hamilton Palace was offered by 
the master himself to Dudly Charleston, for the sum of six hundred florins. He based 
this price on the list that the painter sent to the diplomat in 1618, who purchased it 
and presented it to the English King, Charles I. Later it passed into the gallery of the 
Duke of Hamilton and was sold at public auction June 17th, 1882. 

Another painting, conforming exactly to this one, was said to be in the Church of 
Godshill, near Ryde in the Isle of Wight. In a letter from the Rector of the church, 
Rev. Bartlet, it is declared that the picture is a copy. In November 6th and 7th, 1919, 


2] 


there took place a sale of all belongings of the Hamilton Palace at Christie’s, London. 
Amongst the works of art sold at the time, was also the “Daniel in the Lions’ Den,” 
already above mentioned, for the price of two thousand five hundred twenty pounds. 
Is it not fair to assume that the heirs of the Hamilton family substituted and sold a 
copy at the sale in 1882, and retained the original? The picture now in our possession 
was bought at a public gallery in Frankfurt a. Main, Germany, at auction in 1908. 
How it got there is a matter of conjecture. This suspicion arises and may become a 
conviction, by the fact that at the time of the Hamilton sale, the papers and reviews 
published articles contesting the genuineness of the two paintings, some of the critics 
stating that the one of the Scotch’s was the original, while others affirmed that the 
authentic one was that of the Church of Godshill. But as these two have both been 
declared copies since, then: where is the original? So far, and until we received a letter 
from Mr. Bartlet, no art critic came to any possible conclusion. The statement from 
the Rector is clear enough in asserting that the picture in his possession is only a Copy 
of the original. There is a change of the position of Daniel in the picture which was 
sold at Christie’s in London, as being the original possessed by the Hamilton family. 
In that picture, Daniel is sitting in the Den on the edge of a recess in the rock. He is 
naked, having only a little cloth around his hips and a mantle under him. The legs 
are crossed and the hands clasped. But, Franz Snyder copied the Original of Rubens’ 
on a Wooden Panel, and in this copy we see the Prophet with the right hand raised, 
while the other is resting on the body. This picture by Snyder is at present in the 
“Gemaldegallerie des Kunsthistorischen Museum,” Vienna,from which we have a photo- 
graphic reproduction sent to us, by Dr. Gustav Gluck, Director of above Museum. 
(Plate No. V). Note:—We also find it mentioned in Painter Cyclopedia “Daniel in 
the Lions’ Den” after Rubens, by Franz Snyder in this Vienna Museum. 

If Snyder, who was a contemporary, and a close friend of Rubens, copied the 
“Daniel in the Lions’ Den,” from the very original, it becomes evident that this one, in 
which the “Daniel” has the raised arm, must be and it is the one produced by the Great 
Master. It is out of the question even to think that Snyder could dare to make any 
change in the position of the prophet without offending his master and friend. The 
deduction therefore is that the one sold from the Hamilton Palace, if by Rubens himself, 
was a replica, in which the hands of the prophet were changed in their position and made 
to appear clasped instead of the hands raised up. It is only a deduction, a mere 
supposition. 

As we have already stated, at the time in which the picture passed from the gallery 
of the Duke of Hamilton and was sold, June 17th, 1882, the director of the sale announced 
that, “a painting conforming exactly to this one was in the Church of Godshill,” which 
was declared to be the authentic one by writers who, at the time were debating on the 
authenticity of the two paintings. L’Art, 1882, (Vol. 2. P. 245, Vol. 3. P. 33 and 93.) 

Yet none of them, knowing of the two works, could decide which of them was, 
with a certain degree of truth, the original. The only reason by which the reputation 
of originality was given, was: “That the Hamilton Picture had been on record so long.” 
From “L’Art’’, Vol. III. Page 33. Among the other reasons given by experts, in order to 
attribute one of the paintings to Rubens is that Rev. T. Radcliffe gave assurance that 


[s3e) 


the painting examined by “very competent”? judges was recognized superior to the 
one owned by the Duke of Hamilton, and that if one of the two is entirely painted by 
the hand of Rubens, it can only be the one of the Godshill Church. 

Now then, if the actual director, Rev. Pemberton R. H. Bartlett of the Godshill 
Church, states, in a letter written to Mr. Max A. Krankel, Philadelphia, Pa., March 
11th, 1923 that the picture of “Daniel in the Lions’ Den” in the said above Church, 
is a Copy, then we must conclude that both the Hamilton and the Godshill pictures 
are Copies. Where 1s then the Original ? 

There is, as I stated above, a copy from the original made by Franz Snyder, and 
therefore this together with the others makes a group of “Five” copies of “Daniel in 
the Lions’ Den Satter, PPA Rubens: | 

So far, it has been impossible to get any positive information about the one that 
was declared as being the original. Until such information is available, the inference is, 
according to the evidence that I have on hand and under consideration, and by which 
I have been convinced, that the painting of “Daniel,” under my care, must be the one 
that Rubens painted, a replica of which, of larger size, was, very likely, the one bought 
by Sir Dudley Charleston and given to Charles I. of England by Lord Dorchester. 

Grave by Leeuw attempts to show among other things, that the Hamilton picture 
is without any doubt and entirely by the hand of Rubens, who himself expressed it to 
be so in one of his letters in Italian addressed to Sir Dudley Charleston. But the letter 
written by the artist that the picture of Daniel (size 8 x 72 feet) was original, does not 
indicate that he could not have produced it, as a Replica from ours (size 4% x 6 feet) to 
better answer the purpose for which Lord Dorchester needed it, viz: for filling a large 
space of wall in the King’s Gallery. I have demonstrated how inferior is the said painting, 
supposed to have been in the Hamilton Gallery, to the One I have here. If Rubens 
himself stated that the Hamilton painting was by his own hand, he did not do it with 
the same inspiration that he felt 7m producing ours. I say “Inspired,” with regard to 
the conception and not with regard to execution, which is, in its method, manner and 
style typically Irarian. Therefore it becomes evident that the painting sold in 1882 at 
Christie’s in London is undoubtedly a replica, perhaps a copy of a later period. The 
errors of drawing, of form and the disproportions in the anatomical parts of the figure, 
are so strikingly noticeable as to cause anyone to be convinced that Rubens, being a 
great draughtsman, could not have committed such errors, even if he should have 
not been over enthusiastic in doing a duplicate of his first work. In a duplicate there 
can be made some changes, by the artist originator of the work—while a “copy” gener- 
ally produced by students, followers, or by professional copyists is merely a more or 
less exact geometrical copy of an original painting. 

But we read in the “La Bible” de P. P. Rubens, Page 7, what Charles Maquardt in 
1858 said, ““The attitude of the prophet is almost natural and it is justified by the nature 
of the subject and by the role, all passive, played by the personal “Daniel” who, sitting 
on a fragment of rock, is patiently waiting the moment of his deliverance. His soul is 
elevated towards God, and his hands are joined by his spontaneous movement of prayer.” 
Again I point out that this Monsieur Charles Maquardt was rather a good art writer 
and not an art expert, possessing No technical knowledge, nor a knowledge of drawing 


[4] 


or painting. The figure of Daniel that impressed him so favorably is precisely the one 
I condemn for the defects it possesses for the reason already given. This critic could 
not have seen the copy of Daniel made by Franz Snyder, which is undoubtedly an evidence 
of the original pose given to “Daniel” by Rubens in his first thought of the composition, 
in which the prophet appears with the right hand raised, instead of having both hands 
clasped, as in the picture described by Charles Maquardt. 

In Max Rooses book, page 164, now in the Lenox, New York Library, I quote: 
“There were made a few copies of Rubens’ Daniel; The critic was discussing the 
question at the time of the sale of the Hamilton picture “which was the right picture,” 
the one in which Daniel had his head up and the hands down, or where the position 
of the head and the hands were different? It became at once evident, that there were 
made copies that art critics did not know as such or were unable to discern a copy from 
the original. The photographs we have received reproducing the same picture belonging: 
one, to the Hamilton Collection (Plate No. IV) and the others in the places already 
mentioned (Plate No. VI) have been declared to represent the Copies. Then on what 
proofs was the Hamilton picture declared to be the one produced by the hand of Rubens 
himself, and why was there a doubt raised by the critics, in regard to its authorship? 

Such kind of discussion shows how uncertain those critics were about the subject 
on which they were debating. I have already pointed out that in the Hamilton picture 
of Daniel, there are many errors that a good draftsman as Rubens was could not commit, 
in copying his own picture, no matter whether he was producing it by inspiration in 
recreating it, or doing it perfunctorily rather annoyed at being requested to produce a 
duplicate. 

In the Hamilton picture (Plate No. IV) the figure of Daniel, if standing, would 
appear to be that of an exceptionally large athlete, while the lions appear very small in 
relation to his figure. Examining the figure under the analytical point of view, it shows 
how different is the anatomical structure of the right arm from the left; how bad is the 
body in its foreshortening and size in relation to its large legs. In the picture I have 
here, on the other hand (Plate No. III) the proportion of each of the members of the 
body is in relation to the whole, in perfect harmony. The stiffness of the body, in 
its attitude or pose, is evidently due to his aim in carrying the modeling of its anatomical 
structure according to academic rules, while he endeavored to imitate the method of 
the eclectic masters of the Bolognese school. 

The attitude of Daniel, in his emotion, is that of a human being, with absolute 
faith in the help of God. It is not the attitude of resting there comfortably, with the 
elbow standing on the knees, as is the Daniel in the Hamilton picture, a pose unrelated 
to the movement of the head or the expression of the face, which denotes distress and 
fear. In the figure of our picture the drawing is correct. This quality of draughtsman- 
ship is evident in the construction of the hands and feet, in which it is to be noticed 
how the turning of the large toe and the semi-circular form in which the rest of the toes 
are enclosed, are characteristics of the feet of every naked figure, to be found in number- 
less pictures by Rubens. 

Let me point out the absolute similarity in pose, in form and anatomical con- 
struction in the “Neptune” figure in the “Neptune and Amphitrite” in the Berlin Museum 


C5] 


(Plate No. X). The attitude of the body, the inclination of the head, and the expression 
in the face of the nude figure of the “Sacrifice of Abraham” (Plate No, IX), as seen in 
the engraving, reproducing the painting, which is now lost or missing, of which a copy 
exists in Cannstatt in the possession of Julius Unger, are likewise similar to the same 
characteristics that are in evidence in the figure of our “Daniel.” 

Going further, analizing every minute detail, and comparing the shape of the 
nails, we notice that its form is similarly repeated in the toes of many other figures in 
pictures by the same master. Looking now to some of the lions, let us compare the 
head of the one standing on his four feet, at the right side of Daniel, and we see that 
while in both pictures the expression of the face is that of a human being, in the one 
in the Hamilton picture the modeling of the face is that of a flattened mask as if smashed 
by force, with one eye higher than the other, the nose very long, crooked, and the 
mouth as if it had been only heavily marked, by a cincel, on a flat surface. The left 
jaw is sinking in contrast with the right one, and that from the forehead to the top 
outline of the head the form is protruding. In our picture, if it be true that the face 
of the lions has a similar expression to that of a man, yet the various members of it 
are in good proportion, symmetrically placed and on the head there appears no such 
tumor growths, as in the other picture. 

Continuing the same method of comparative analysis of the other lions, as we see 
them in the so-called Hamilton Rubens, with those that are represented in our picture. 
It is not difficult, even for the layman, to notice how grotesque are the heads of those 
in the picture first mentioned, and how well drawn and well modeled are the heads of 
the lions in ours. In this we cannot help admiring also the splendid construction of 
the bodies, the correctness of the form of the legs and paws in contrast to those in the 
Hamilton picture. In this last one, the body of the lion lying at the right of the picture, 
looks as if it were boneless, and the effect produced by it is so striking, especially in 
the foreleg and shoulder, that the head of the lion, standing behind it looks as if it had 
been copied from a model in papier-mache. And how grossly is builded up the lioness 
that is seen with her body towards the spectator, resembling, in its general form and 
in its profile to some of the caricatures intended to represent Monsieur Clemenceau of 
France. 

Further proceedure in dissecting the parts of the figures in both pictures, strengthens 
my assertion that the so-called Hamilton picture was never seen by Rubens and that 
it was the product of a very poor copyist, and not even a replica. 

The stiffness noticeable in the attitude of “Daniel” in our picture, and in the forceful 
position in its crossed legs and right arm, are characteristic and not dissimilar at all to 
those that are likewise in evidence in the male figure seen 1n the ““Pausias and Glycera”’ 
(Plate No. VIII) in the Duke of Westminister Gallery, London, and in that of Rubens 
“Hiob and his Friends’ (Plate No. VII) of which we find a reproduction and a descrip- 
tion in the “Jahrbuch” der Kunst-Historischen Sammlung, Wien. (Volume XXXIV, 
Hies23); 

But more similar is the general pose of Hiob (Plate No. VII) in the print of “Hiob 
and his Friends.’ In it, while there is difference in the position of the legs, there is 
very slight difference in that of the body, in that of the arms, and in its inclination 


L6 ] 


which is similar or very like to that of Daniel in our picture, and it is absolutely the same 
in the position of the forefingers. In both they are bending inwardly; while the right 
arm is somewhat closer to the body and the fore arm is straighter than it is in the 
Daniel, the anatomical structure is similar in both hands, and very alike in form and 
position. In the print represented in Plate No. VII, the head is that of an old man, 
in contrast with that of our Daniel, representing rather a young man; yet the con- 
struction and expression are only slightly different, expressing similar emotion. It looks 
as 1f Rubens had used the same model for both figures. 

In comparing the reproduction of the pictures of the Hamilton collection, that of 
Mr. Betz’s picture (in Worms a/Rh) and that painted by Snyder (Plate No. V) in 
Vienna Gallery, it is quite evident that this last one is the best, and if this one approaches 
in faithfulness of drawing, form, modeling, colors and the general physical traits of 
each of the lions to those seen in our Daniel, it should convince the most skeptical 
connoisseur, knowing the close friendship between Synder and Rubens, that the copy 
produced by Snyder must have been from the original by Rubens, and that the change 
in the expression of distress that we notice in the face of Daniel, must have been the 
result of an after thought, due to an observation or friendly criticism between both 
masters, and made with the approval of Rubens. 

In the Hamilton picture, amongst others, are two alterations in its composition 
that Rubens would not have introduced in his original composition. 

The curve of the opening of the rock is seen lowered so much that the head of 
Daniel looks as if resting on the edge of it, a condition which could have allowed Daniel 
to think of a possible escape by jumping the fence; the second error or change is that 
the mantle has been carefully spread out and laid on top of an outstanding piece of 
rock. This change indicates the idea of a pretentious copyist, only wishing to obtain in 
the new arrangement of the cloth, a etter decorative note. Then again, the copyist, 
thinking that too many details, in such a composition, would detract the attention 
of the spectator from the main feature of the painting, he swept off the foregrounds 
the bones which appear in the foreground of the original painting. 

We consider as being of great importance a statement made by Messrs. Christie, 
Manson and Wood, London, sent to Mr. Max A. Krankel, Philadelphia, Pa., on February 
1924, from which it can be deducted that our picture 1s the best of those we have studied 
and carefully examined, analized and criticized. These gentlemen state that the one 
in the Hamilton Collection was sold at the time of the Hamilton Palace Sale in 1882, 
there repurchased by the Duke of Hamilton a year later and then reso/d in November, 
1919, when it was purchased, on a private Commission, by the above mentioned firm 
of Christie, Manson & Wood. They say further, in the same letter, that the picture 
was undoubtedly an original picture, that was engraved by Blooteling, F. Lamb, F. 
Ward, and W. Leeuw, while in another letter written to Mr. Bartlett of the Godshill 
Church, Isle of Wight, they stated among other things, that their opinion is that the 
Hamilton-picture may be the original but they are not sure. Such contradictory statements 
confirm the dowdt expressed by various critics, who at the time of the sale of the Hamilton 
picture were publicly discussing the authenticity of the picture. It looks as if the 
great experts and art critics were not well acquainted with the artistic individual 


ee 


characteristic of Rubens’ work or that their judgment was rather based on the knowledge 
of other connoisseurs who also had learned the technique, manner, and style of the 
master work only by what they had digested in reading art books, looking at prints 
and photographs, comfortably seated at their homes, arriving at decisions between 
pufts of smoke of one of those typical old English terra-cotta pipes, filled up with stumps 
of used cigars. It should not be considered a strange thing when Connoisseurs and 
Critics, called upon to give their opinion on the authorship of the painting, verysel dom 
approach a current opinion, not only on the name of the master, but on the period 
in which his work was produced or the school to which it should be assigned . Something 
alike happens in certain medical cases in which various Physicians and Professors are 
called on to diagnose a particular disease, presenting itself under a not very common 
form and with peculiarities of symptom. If they are of the class formed by those not 
studying in the clinic, or by daily practicing in the Public Hospitals, but solely reading 
medical books and charts, their conclusion are so contrasting, that they finally resort 
to further study of the case and experiment to be made on the patient, so that it often 
happens that by the time they begin to understand the case, the patient has Jong said 
to the family his last good-by. Returning to Messrs. Christie, Manson & Wood’s letter, 
they say also that in communicating with the “Gentlemen for whom we purchased it,” 
he informs them that he does not wish his name or the present whereabouts of the picture 
to be disclosed. 

The attitude of these gentlemen in affirming first that the Hamilton picture sold 
in 1882 and then purchased in 1919 was undoubtedly the original; and then advising 
Mr. Bartlett that they were ot sure that it was the original, and that they cannot 
even state the whereabout of the picture, is quite significant. 

A layman with no art knowledge of any kind, will undoubtedly recognize in com- 
paring the Plate No. III with the Plate No. IV how inferior is that represented in 
Plate No. IV and how correct are the deductions arrived at by me in pointing out the 
errors of form, expression, etc., as described in paragraph four, page S. 

Peter Paul Rubens was certainly one of the greatest painters of the sixteenth 
century, the golden age of painting. 

The degree of pleasure we take in his work may often depend on our sympathy 
and comprehension of a man, as a man; it is however indisputable that any objective 
judgment based on just principles of art, will, according with such principles, consider 
Rubens as one of the greatest painters of the world. 

Yet, he has defects as other masters had. His rich coloring, his exaggerated opulence 
of form, impropriety in treating historical subjects are some of them, as he was often 
coarse, vulgar, and prosaic in his allegorical composition and interpretation of the loftiest 
and most delicate creation of poetry. In other of his masterpieces, as for instance in 
“Decius” in the Lichtenstein Gallery, the historical costumes are faultless, while he is 
poetical in his conception, or in the “Virgin and Marie’ trampling down “Sin and 
Dragon” in the Muench Gallery is a divine lyric; as likewise the picture of St. Theresa 
pleading for a soul in Purgatory and a little sketch of war in the Lichtenstein Gallery, 
with moral and sentiment exquisitively combined are pure and true, conveying to 


[8] 


the mind and to the heart such a comprehensive effect, let one feel as if reading the 
sonnets of a Filicaja. 

He painted heavy forms, it is true, but he gave to them soul. His personages, no 
matter what they represent or their action may be, are impressed with the earnestness 
and energy of the mind which conceived them. 

Great masters and all other artists of repute had various periods, during their 
artistic career, and therefore every work produced in the first period shows the influence 
-of the work of the master studied; later on the manner developes, tending to emancipate 
itself from this influence, and begins to show characteristics of growing individuality, 
which finally assert themselves in work of mature age, with marks of absolute inde- 
pendence in conception and in the rendering of it in graphic form and color. 

The “Daniel in the Lions’ Den’ is one of the productions in which the academic 
rules in composition, draughtmanship, manner, and style are most in evidence. In the 
figure of Daniel it is noticeable as we have already stated on page 4 the stiffness in his 
attitude, the forceful position of the crossed limbs, while in other several parts of the 
picture, the similarity of details and accessories are remarkable, just as it is evident 
that there is timidity of execution, and the dominant tonalities are cold and dry: the 
modeling of the body is produced by tones of d/uish grey, pictorical qualities similar to 
those which are likewise to be noticed in the “Neptune and Amphitrite’ in the Berlin 
Museum, formerly belonging to the Count von Schoenborn, Vienna. As was the case 
with “Daniel in the Lions’ Den,” at the time it was placed on sale, in 1881, a similar 
warm discussion arose as to the authenticity of the “Neptune and Amphitrite.” 

We have fully demonstrated that the “Daniel in the Lions’ Den,” which is to be 
seen in the Imperial Museum, in Vienna, or the ““Gemaeldegallerie des Kunsthistorischen 
Museum, Wien I. Burgring 5. by Franz Snyder, after Rubens, and the one in the Godshill 
Church, the one in possession of Mr. Betz in Worms and the Hamilton picture, are 
far inferior in every respect to our Daniel here in Philadelphia. The only one approach- 
ing in its general rendering of the lions, the Daniel and all the details in the picture, 
is that which was copied by Franz Snyder; and because this artist was a contemporary 
and close friend of Rubens, and often painted in cooperation with Rubens and vice versa, 
the clear deduction is that Snyder could not have been copying from the Hamilton 
picture, in which the deformities and the grotesque expressions in the lions’ heads and 
the Daniel phisionomical traits are strikingly in evidence. Therefore he must have copied 
from the one we have, and this cannot have been but the work originally produced by 
Rubens himself, rather than the Hamilton which is a very poor grotesque reproduction 
of ours. It is my opinion, therefore, that this 7s the on/y one in existence, so far known 
possessing all the technical and pictorial qualities inherent in Rudens’ early period. 


C9] 


W'S 'Q “vg ‘eIydjepepyg eyuery “Y Xv Jo uorssassod oy3 ut 
suaqny [neg Jajaq Aq ,.uaq, SUOr] 9y3 Ur atueq,, Te avid 








« 


TYSr ‘uopuoyT ut paysiqnd ‘poorg 2 uosury] “oNstuyd jo SojvjvD sojeg sy} Woy usyv3 21nId1g 


Yed Suory 24} ul jolurq,, Al 4LvIg 


uolqI2][O7 uO IIe FY Oy ul AJIIULIOJ 





SOYyoUT SZ X BT POOA UO pajuleg 
sapdug zuviy Aq paidoo ,“uaq suory oy} ul jarueq,, , 


SuUsqn yy 


aya ur ‘aoaIdsayseyy ]eUIZTIIO UL se JapAUG ZUeI jo oUIeU 
2Yq Jepun AJsnolies Zuringy “uo siqy APUO 9319 9AA “sq ed 
ul 10 9joyM ‘ZunuIed sty} Jo soidod [esJaAes o1e 2124], 
sy oeG SUOrT 247 EL ]ouvC,, 
sUOI]9211075 Jo UOINIPpY 
FIE “g “Z "JOA “ZBRI ‘sesooy xXeIy 
4q 
susqny “gd “d 2p 21n20,7, 
*ULON Ay PLUS: 














“YY/v SUIOM ZI “IW Jo uorssassod ul MONY 
HO SUOr'T 943 ul atued,, Jo Ador 


: JA @1v1g 





fc “Sq “ATIXXX “[OA ‘euuer, “Sunjpurureg uaypstiojsty-jsun-y sop yonqsye[ 
Spusliy sty pur gol, Susqny IIA 2Lv1g 
yopuoy ‘Aro][vy) JazsturuTjsaAA JO oynG 
suoqny “qd ‘d Aq “eis A[D) puv svisned IIIA 44v1g 





}eJsuuLy ‘IvSup) snijN{ Jo uorssassod ut mou 
devs] SulYIIovs WeyRIqY sueqny XIS4Vv1g 


uinasny uljiag ‘suaqny “gq ‘gq Aq 
ainiyduy pue sunjdayy,, X Iivig 


““c 

















Pa 
& 


aye 











« st rena 
















Page) ws 
Peace oe ies 
Vas eae 


@ 











. 
ees 








esa ed Stee pie aves wae = Kee: ote : ‘ 


























Ag 
Lie tn ae 
Phtoe kh tet 
wos gi 












































c 





























Wy ga 





& Fi ‘ ‘ 




















TA y eee 
pa 





NAY 9 yeahh a 
Vin ONE ae. 
a) 
he he Le Sg 
ER We Cute te 


Woes ey ee 
holm 


Cy porns 
Pew Orn 6 
vy ek. ie 
























bo int fp 
8h chive 
















aoe Sah " 
ea hs 
Peay a ts ‘< 
RARE mB EM 1 





a Fh J 









ms 
fe Wiest 


